Sunteți pe pagina 1din 32

Case 3:16-cv-00180-JAG Document 161-4 Filed 01/18/18 Page 1 of 32 PageID# 3719

EXHIBIT D
Case 3:16-cv-00180-JAG Document 161-4 Filed 01/18/18 Page 2 of 32 PageID# 3720
Case 3:16-cv-00180-JAG Document 161-4 Filed 01/18/18 Page 3 of 32 PageID# 3721

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................. 3 


II.  ENGAGEMENT OVERVIEW ........................................................................................... 4 
III.  PROJECT OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................... 5 
IV.  DOMINION’S DAMAGES ................................................................................................. 5 
A.  TL-590 ROW Slip Repairs & Restoration Work (2013 & 2014) ...............................................6 
B.  TL-590 Base Lay Piping Quantity Overpayment .......................................................................9 
C.  TL-590 Curlex Overpayment ...................................................................................................12 
D.  TL-590 Road And Driveway Repairs ......................................................................................13 

THE KENRICH GROUP LLC 2


Case 3:16-cv-00180-JAG Document 161-4 Filed 01/18/18 Page 4 of 32 PageID# 3722

I. Executive Summary

Dominion Transmission, Inc. (“Dominion”) contracted with Precision Pipeline, LLC


(“Precision”) to construct two natural gas pipeline segments referred to as TL 492 ext. 5 (“TL-492”) and
TL-590. This Report addresses the quantification of Dominion’s affirmative economic damage claims
associated with the 30-inch diameter TL-590 segment (the “Project”). The Project is located in
northeastern West Virginia and southwestern Pennsylvania and is a part of Dominion’s larger
Appalachian Gateway Project. The construction of the Project generally included pipeline construction
tasks such as clearing the land, digging a trench for the pipe, installing the pipe, and restoring the right of
way (“ROW”) and nearby areas. While Precision completed its work by the required ready for service
date, several issues, including Dominion paying Precision more than it should have per the contract and
Precision failing to complete warranty work, have not been resolved.

The Kenrich Group LLC (“Kenrich”) was retained to determine the economic damages incurred
by Dominion as a result of Precision related issues. Precision did not complete its warranty work for slip
repairs in 2013 and 2014, so Dominion hired other contractors to complete Precision’s warranty work.
Precision also failed to acknowledge the over payments by Dominion to Precision for the actual as-built
quantities and resultant associated price that Precision should-have-been paid for 1) Base Lay pipe work
and 2) curlex installation. Further, Dominion completed items of Precision’s scope of work after
Precision failed to do the work.

After reviewing the contemporaneous Project records, including the Contract, invoices, and
correspondence as well as discussing the Project with Dominion personnel, Kenrich determined
Dominion was damaged in the amount of $8,505,425 as summarized in Table 1 below.

Table 1
Dominion’s Damages For TL-590

Description Amount
ROW Slip Repairs & Restoration Work (2013 & 2014) $ 7,447,269

Base Lay Overpayment 838,058

Curlex Overpayment 172,394

Road And Driveway Repairs 47,704

Total Damages $ 8,505,425

THE KENRICH GROUP LLC 3


Case 3:16-cv-00180-JAG Document 161-4 Filed 01/18/18 Page 5 of 32 PageID# 3723

II. Engagement Overview

McGuireWoods LLP, counsel for Dominion, retained Kenrich to quantify the economic damages
Dominion incurred as a result of Precision related issues.

Kenrich is a national business and litigation consulting firm that provides business and litigation
consulting services to corporations and counsel. Kenrich has more than 75 professionals in ten offices
within the United States. Kenrich professionals include engineers, Certified Public Accountants, Masters
of Business Administration, and others with accounting, economic, and finance experience.

This report was prepared under the direction of Mark Gentry, a Vice President of Kenrich. Prior
to working at Kenrich, Mr. Gentry was a Project Manager with JE Dunn Construction, an Engineering
News Record Top 25 Contractor. In addition, Mr. Gentry previously worked at Navigant Consulting and
Tucker Alan, Inc. preparing construction damage analyses. He has substantial experience in economic
damages analysis consistent with the scope performed on this engagement. Mr. Gentry’s resume and
testimony experience list are included in Attachment A. Mr. Gentry’s hourly billing rate on this
engagement is $325.

In preparing this report, Mr. Gentry relied on the following:

1. The Contract between Dominion and Precision;

2. Invoices provided by Dominion and Precision;

3. Dominion accounting information from its SAP databases;

4. Various Correspondence;

5. Other select documents as listed in Attachment B; and

6. Discussions with Dominion Project personnel.

The opinions and analyses presented in this report are based on currently available information.
If new information becomes available that is relevant to the analyses or opinions, we may supplement this
report. This report is also supplemented by work papers that may be updated prior to trial hearings to
incorporate changed circumstances or additional information that is determined to have a material impact
on our opinions. If this matter proceeds to trial, selected pages of the documents and information relied
upon may be used as exhibits. Additionally, we may prepare graphic or illustrative exhibits based on the
contents of this report, the documents and information considered, and analysis of those documents and

THE KENRICH GROUP LLC 4


Case 3:16-cv-00180-JAG Document 161-4 Filed 01/18/18 Page 6 of 32 PageID# 3724

information. Kenrich currently anticipates attending trial to hear (and/or reading testimony transcripts of)
relevant witness testimony that Kenrich may also rely on for our testimony at trial.

III. Project Overview

Dominion contracted with Precision on January 7, 20111 for the completion of the TL-590 and
TL-492 pipelines and agreed to a ready for service date of August 15, 2012.2 Dominion acknowledged
that Precision achieved the ready for service date in accordance with the requirements of the Contract by
signing Exhibit P-Completion Certificates on September 7, 2012.3 The TL-590 pipeline included
approximately 44 miles of 30-inch diameter pipe to be constructed in Marshall County, West Virginia and
Greene County, Pennsylvania.4

IV. Dominion’s Damages

Dominion incurred additional costs for Precision responsible issues and also overpaid for various
items of work. At the request of Dominion’s counsel, Kenrich calculated Dominion’s economic damages
as a result of the Precision responsible issues and the overpayments. Dominion’s economic damages are
summarized in Table 2 below and will be discussed in further detail in the following paragraphs.

Table 2
Dominion’s Damages For TL-590

Description Amount
ROW Slip Repairs & Restoration Work (2013 & 2014) $ 7,447,269

Base Lay Overpayment 838,058

Curlex Overpayment 172,394

Road And Driveway Repairs 47,704

Total Damages $ 8,505,425

1
DOM00051072 – Contract 2010-18: TL-590 & TL-492 70 x5.
2
PP00145979 – Exhibit B: Addenda B – 1: Detailed Project Information.
3
DOM00004126 – Exhibit P – Completion Certificates.
4
PP00145979 – Exhibit B: Addenda B – 1: Detailed Project Information.

THE KENRICH GROUP LLC 5


Case 3:16-cv-00180-JAG Document 161-4 Filed 01/18/18 Page 7 of 32 PageID# 3725

A. TL-590 ROW Slip Repairs & Restoration Work (2013 & 2014)

A slip occurs when the ground becomes unstable and slides away or down from where it was
originally. A slip is similar to a landslide but on a smaller scale. In 2013 and 2014, multiple slips
occurred on the TL-590 ROW.5 Per discussions with Dominion personnel, Precision was responsible to
restore the ROW, including repairing slips on the ROW, within its two year warranty period.

Precision provided a warranty for its work for two years after the Final Restoration and Project
Completion Date in Contract Article 18.1 as shown below.

Graphic 1
TL-590 And TL-492 Contract – Article 18.16

As Article 18.1 describes, “the Work” should be free from defects, such as a slip. However, in
2013 and 2014, which were within the two year warranty period, multiple slips occurred on the ROW.
Dominion personnel have indicated that Precision buried an excessive depth of wood chips at multiple
locations on the ROW which contributed to the slips. In addition, Dominion personnel have indicated
that professional industry standards require Precision to repair slips within the warranty period.

In 2013, over 30 slips occurred on the TL-590 ROW.7 Dominion notified Precision that the slips
had occurred which required repair as a warranty item.8 Precision refused to come back and complete the
slip repairs, and Dominion then hired other contractors to complete Precision’s warranty work. The 2013
slips were repaired by Price Gregory between September and November of 2013.9 Kenrich analyzed the
Price Gregory invoices and supporting documentation submitted to Dominion and quantified the costs
incurred by Dominion associated with the repair of the slips on TL-590.10 To calculate the economic
damages incurred by Dominion as a result of the slips, Kenrich analyzed the daily reports included in
each Price Gregory invoice. Work activities for labor and equipment costs were classified into the

5
Attachment C – Summary Of Slip Repairs on TL-590.
6
DOM00051121 – Article 18.1: Quality of Services.
7
Attachment C – Summary Of Slip Repairs on TL-590.
8
DOM00007623-DOM00007627 – 2/5/13 Email From B. Moody.
9
DOM00079332-DOM00079336 – Price Gregory Invoice Cover Sheets.
10
DOM00154900-DOM00156779 – Price Gregory Invoices And Supporting Documentation.

THE KENRICH GROUP LLC 6


Case 3:16-cv-00180-JAG Document 161-4 Filed 01/18/18 Page 8 of 32 PageID# 3726

following three categories, “slip repair work”, “indirect work”, and “unrelated work”. Price Gregory did
not segregate its material costs with specific work activities like it did for labor and equipment, so
Kenrich allocated the material costs utilizing a proportional percentage of each work category based on
the labor and equipment costs. Once all of the Price Gregory costs had been categorized into the three
categories, slip repair work totaling $3,343,700 indirect work totaling $1,637,450 and unrelated work
totaling $488,533, Kenrich allocated the indirect costs proportionately to slip repair work and unrelated
work. As shown in Table 3 below, Dominion incurred $4,772,375 to repair the 2013 slips.

Table 3
TL-590 2013 ROW Slip Repair & Restoration Damages11

Description Amount
Slip Repair Work $ 3,343,700

Indirect Costs Allocated To Slip Repair Work 1,428,675

Total TL-590 2013 ROW Slip Repair & Restoration Damages $ 4,772,375

In 2014, more slips occurred on TL-590. Over 20 slips were repaired by Ace Pipeline, another
contractor hired by Dominion to complete Precision’s warranty work, between late April and September
of 2014.12 Kenrich analyzed the Ace Pipeline invoices and supporting documentation submitted to
Dominion and quantified the costs incurred by Dominion associated with the repair of the slips on TL-
590. To calculate the economic damages incurred by Dominion as a result of the slips, Kenrich analyzed
the daily reports included in each Ace Pipeline invoice. Work activities that included a slip or slip station
number were classified as “slip repair work” and totaled $708,034. Kenrich also identified indirect work
activities, such as equipment repair and hauling, and allocated a proportional percentage of the cost of the
indirect work, or $1,115,054, to the slip work. In total Dominion incurred $1,823,088 to repair the slips
in 2014. 13

Ace Pipeline also completed other non-slip restoration work on TL-590 such as re-seeding,
applying lime and mulch as well as removing erosion control devices (“ECD’s”) from the ROW. Per
Dominion personnel, this work was part of Precision’s responsibility to restore the ROW. Similar to the
slip repairs in 2014, Kenrich analyzed the Ace Pipeline invoices and supporting documentation submitted

11
Attachment D – Summary Of 2013 TL-590 Slip Repair And Restoration Related Damages.
12
DOM00108178, DOM00108192, DOM00084983, DOM00085087, DOM00085178, DOM00085263,
DOM00085372, DOM00085480, DOM00070840, and DOM00085611 – Ace Pipeline 2014 Invoices.
13
Attachment E – Summary Of 2014 TL-590 Slip Repair And Restoration Related Damages.

THE KENRICH GROUP LLC 7


Case 3:16-cv-00180-JAG Document 161-4 Filed 01/18/18 Page 9 of 32 PageID# 3727

to Dominion and quantified the costs incurred by Dominion associated with re-seeding, applying lime and
mulch as well as removing ECD’s from the ROW.14 To calculate the economic damages incurred by
Dominion as a result of the other non-slip restoration work, Kenrich analyzed the daily reports included in
each Ace Pipeline invoice. Work activities that included re-seeding, applying lime and mulch at non-slip
stations were classified as “re-seeding/fertilizing” and totaled $182,494. Work activities that included
removing ECD’s at non-slip stations were classified as “ECD removal” and totaled $148,334. As
described earlier, Kenrich also identified indirect work activities, such as equipment repair and hauling,
and allocated a proportional percentage of the cost of the indirect work, or $287,407 to the re-
seeding/fertilizing work and $233,571 to the ECD removal work. In total Dominion incurred $469,901 to
complete re-seeding/fertilizing work and $381,905 for ECD removal work.15

Kenrich also identified work activities completed by Ace Pipeline that were not associated with the
TL-590 slip repairs or other non-slip restoration work. Kenrich classified those work activities, which
totaled $53,304, as “unrelated”. As described earlier, Kenrich also identified indirect work activities,
such as equipment repair and hauling, and allocated a proportional percentage of the cost of the indirect
work, or $83,935 to the unrelated work. In total, Kenrich excluded 2014 Ace Pipeline costs totaling
$137,239 from the Precision responsible economic damages.16

As shown in Table 4 below, Dominion incurred $2,674,894 to repair the slips and complete other
non-slip restoration work in 2014.

Table 4
TL-590 2014 ROW Slip Repair & Restoration Damages17

Description Amount
Slip Repair Work $ 1,823,088

Re-seeding/Fertilizing 469,901

ECD Removal 381,905

Total TL-590 2014 ROW Slip Repair & Restoration Damages $ 2,674,894

In total, Dominion incurred $7,447,269 from 2013 to 2014 to repair slips and complete other non-
slip restoration work that should have been completed by Precision within Precision’s warranty period.

14
DOM00108178, DOM00108192, DOM00084983, DOM00085087, DOM00085178, DOM00085263,
DOM00085372, DOM00085480, DOM00070840, and DOM00085611 – Ace Pipeline 2014 Invoices.
15
Attachment E – Summary Of 2014 TL-590 Slip Repair And Restoration Related Damages.
16
Attachment E – Summary Of 2014 TL-590 Slip Repair And Restoration Related Damages.
17
Attachment E – Summary Of 2014 TL-590 Slip Repair And Restoration Related Damages.

THE KENRICH GROUP LLC 8


Case 3:16-cv-00180-JAG Document 161-4 Filed 01/18/18 Page 10 of 32 PageID# 3728

B. TL-590 Base Lay Piping Quantity Overpayment

Dominion and Precision agreed that after receipt of the as-built drawings, the parties would
reconcile the amount owed to Precision for the Base Lay piping work to the as-built footage calculated at
the conclusion of the Project.18 Dominion and Precision, however, disagreed on what constituted the
Base Lay piping work.

Per the Contract, “Base-Lay Pipe Work shall mean those portions of the work identified as such in
accordance with Exhibit A – Scope of Work: Pipeline Data.”19 Section 2.3 of Exhibit A defines Base Lay
as including, “Unloading, tallying, storing, hauling, and stringing pipe…clearing rights of way…grading
rights of way…excavating and grading ditch…coating pipe…testing the pipeline…all seeding and
restoration…” among other things.20 Attachment 2 to Exhibit A defines that the Base Lay price does not
include road, railroad, wetland, stream and river crossings as shown below in Graphic 2.

Graphic 2
TL-590 And TL-492 Contract – Attachment 2 To Exhibit A21

The road, railroad, wetland, stream and river crossings excluded from the Base Lay unit price pay
items are instead included as Authorized Special Work unit price pay items. The Authorized Special
Work unit prices are established in Attachment 2 to Exhibit A and generally state for road, railroad,
wetland, stream and river crossings that the work includes the installation of the pipe.22 Section 2.4 of
Exhibit A defines Authorized Special Work as including the following items, among others (bold
emphasis added).

18
DOM00054568-DOM00054569 – 10/9/12 Email From M. Pratt.
19
DOM00051083 – Article 1.1: Defined Terms.
20
PP00045573-PP00045575 – Exhibit A Article 2.3: Base-Lay Pipe Work.
21
PP00045332 – Attachment 2 to Exhibit A Article 1.1.
22
PP00045332-PP00045545 – Attachment 2 to Exhibit A.

THE KENRICH GROUP LLC 9


Case 3:16-cv-00180-JAG Document 161-4 Filed 01/18/18 Page 11 of 32 PageID# 3729

“2.4.A) Installing casing under highways and railroads in the manner approved by the
highway or railroad authorities, including excavating (consolidated rock removal),
boring, tunneling, sealing, venting, cutting, welding, testing, and performing all other
work necessary to completely install such crossings.”23

“2.4.M) Installing river crossings in the manner and at the locations designated by the
Contract Documents, including the installation of pipe, anodes, weights, clamps, saddles,
valves, reinforcing welds, headers, riprap, the bending, welding, lowering, laying,
coating, wrapping, and shielding of the pipe and coating, the necessary ditching,
dredging, backfilling, channeling, and disposing of excess excavated material, and the
performing of all other work necessary to completely install such river crossings.”24

Kenrich understands the Base Lay work to specifically exclude road, railroad, wetland, stream and
river crossings as stated in Attachment 2 to Exhibit A. In addition, the Authorized Special Work
definitions in Exhibit A and Attachment 2 to Exhibit A include work that would result in a double
payment for certain items if the work was paid as both Authorized Special Work and Base Lay work.
Therefore footages for Authorized Special Work pay items should not also be included in the Base Lay
unit price pay items. 25 Kenrich analyzed the Base Lay footages for TL-590 and determined that
Dominion overpaid for the Base Lay footage by paying both the Authorized Special Work unit price and
the Base Lay unit price for pipeline footage that was installed as Authorized Special Work.

Precision’s Monte Pratt argued in October 2012 that, “During the kick-off meeting in March, it was
stated by Greg, and confirmed by Carole, that the Base Lay footage was paid from end to end, and stream,
wetland, and bored crossings were added on top of that.”26 Dominion personnel disagreed with Monte
Pratt’s statement and did not recall anything of that nature being said in the meeting.27 Further, Article
2.3 of the Contract states the following, “This Contract, together with all attachments and incorporated
references, is the entire agreement between DTI and Contractor with respect to the Work and supersedes
any prior or contemporaneous agreement or understanding between the Parties regarding the subject
matter hereof.”28

23
PP00045576 – Exhibit A Article 2.4 A).
24
PP00045576-PP00045577 – Exhibit A Article 2.4 M).
25
In addition, Attachment 2 to Exhibit A estimated the Base Lay quantity at 222,158 feet or approximately 42.1
miles. Authorized Special Work items A, B, C, E, F, and H were estimated at 6,014 feet or approximately 1.1 miles.
Adding the estimated footages for Base Lay and those Authorized Special Work items together results in
approximately 44 miles as listed in – Exhibit B: Addenda B – 1: Detailed Project Information.
26
DOM00054568-DOM00054569 – 10/9/12 Email From M. Pratt.
27
DOM00050630-DOM00050634 – 10/16/12 Emails From Dominion Personnel.
28
DOM00051088 – Article 2.3: Entirety.

THE KENRICH GROUP LLC 10


Case 3:16-cv-00180-JAG Document 161-4 Filed 01/18/18 Page 12 of 32 PageID# 3730

Kenrich calculated the total Base Lay footage by subtracting the footage for Authorized Special
Work pay items related to the installation of pipe from the total as-built pipe footage as shown in Table 5
below.
Table 5
TL-590 Base Lay Footage29

Description Footage
As Built Footage 229,237

Less: Authorized Special Work Footage (5,787)

Total Base Lay Footage 223,450

Kenrich compared the total Base Lay footage to the quantity that Dominion had paid Precision for
each Base Lay component and determined that the Base Lay components in Table 6 below had been
overpaid. Kenrich then multiplied each Base Lay overage by its respective unit price and applied the
same 1% discount to the total that Precision applied in its billings. Kenrich determined that Dominion
overpaid Precision by $838,058 on TL-590 as shown in Table 6 below.

Table 6
TL-590 Base Lay Overpayment30

Base Lay Item Description Overage (LF) Unit Price Overpayment


A.1 Material/Pipe at Pipeyard 4,126 $ 12.81 $ 52,854
A.2 Clear ROW 4,126 25.62 105,708
A.3 Grade ROW 4,126 25.62 105,708
A.4 Ditch 4,126 51.24 211,416
A.5 Weld 4,126 64.05 264,271
A.6 Coat 4,126 25.62 105,708
A.8 Hydrotest 67 12.81 858
Total Overpayment Before Discount $ 846,523
Less: 1% Discount (8,465)
Total Base Lay Overpayment $ 838,058

29
Attachment F – Summary Of TL-590 Base Lay Overpayment.
30
Attachment F – Summary Of TL-590 Base Lay Overpayment.

THE KENRICH GROUP LLC 11


Case 3:16-cv-00180-JAG Document 161-4 Filed 01/18/18 Page 13 of 32 PageID# 3731

C. TL-590 Curlex Overpayment

During October 2012, Dominion personnel walked the TL-590 ROW to measure and document the
actual quantities of certain work installed as well as to review punchlist items. During that walk,
Dominion personnel found a discrepancy in the amount of curlex, or erosion control fabric, installed as
compared to what Precision had billed for in its invoices to Dominion.31 According to the “Tl-590 Curlex
Location” spreadsheet completed by Dominion personnel, based on its measurement of actual quantities
installed in October 2012, Precision installed 8,339,694 square feet of curlex.32 Precision billed for
10,909,69833 square feet of curlex, however Dominion only paid Precision for 8,627,017 square feet of
curlex.34

Precision argued that the quantities of curlex were only invoiced after the quantities were verified
and signed off on by Dominion personnel.35 However, per discussions with Dominion personnel, the
personnel signing off on Precision’s quantities may have simply counted rolls of curlex on the truck and
not the actual amount of curlex installed on the ROW. Regardless, per the Contract, Dominion had the
right to audit Precision’s curlex quantities as shown in Article 8.3.1 in Graphic 3 below.

Graphic 3
TL-590 And TL-492 Contract36

31
DOM00007475 – 10/16/12 Email From B. Moody.
32
DOM00007476 – TL-590 Curlex final.xlsx.
33
PP00003418-PP00003423 – Progress Billing Invoice 10-137-82 For Week Ending 11/11/12.
34
Attachment G – Summary Of TL-590 Curlex (Erosion Control Fabric) Overpayment.
35
DOM00050628 – 10/16/12 Email From M. Pratt.
36
DOM00051103 – Article 8.3: Right to Audit.

THE KENRICH GROUP LLC 12


Case 3:16-cv-00180-JAG Document 161-4 Filed 01/18/18 Page 14 of 32 PageID# 3732

Based on Dominion’s October 2012 measurement of actual quantities installed, Kenrich determined
that Dominion overpaid Precision for curlex in the amount of $172,394 as shown in Table 7 below.

Table 7
TL-590 Curlex Overpayment37

Description Amount
Square Feet Of Curlex Paid By Dominion 8,627,017

Less: Square Feet Of Curlex Installed By Precision (8,339,694)

Square Feet Of Curlex Overpaid By Dominion 287,323

Unit Price Per Square Foot Of Curlex $ 0.60

Total Curlex Overpayment $ 172,394

D. TL-590 Road And Driveway Repairs

According to the chairman of Morgan Township’s Board of Supervisors, Precision traveled on at


least three roads in the township that were not bonded by Precision which resulted in damaged roads.38

Morgan Township provided an estimate for $86,000 to Dominion for the road damages incurred as
a result of Precision’s actions on TL-590.39 Per Addendum 1,Pre-Bid Minutes, “Contractor shall be
responsible for obtaining bonds for all roads and restoring any road damage. Dominion will pay 50% of
all road bonds and damages up to a maximum of $5,000,000.”40 Therefore Precision is responsible for
50% of the Morgan Township road damages, or $43,000.

The TL-590 Project crossed Mrs. Young’s driveway. Mrs. Young’s driveway was originally
supposed to be a bored crossing, however Precision decided to open cut the driveway.41 Per discussion
with Dominion personnel, when making the decision to open cut instead of bore, Precision explicitly
agreed to repave the driveway when the work was completed. However when prompted by Dominion to
complete the repaving, Precision stated that open cutting the driveway resulted in an overall cost savings
to Dominion that Dominion was responsible for repaving the driveway.42 Precision did not complete the

37
Attachment G – Summary Of TL-590 Curlex (Erosion Control Fabric) Overpayment.
38
DOM00003587 – 7/17/13 Email From D.J. Linger.
39
DOM00079393-DOM00079396 – Morgan Township Letter And Corporate Disbursement Request.
40
PP00145998 – Exhibit B: Addenda B-2: Addendum 1: Pre-Bid Minutes.
41
DOM00011266 – 6/12/13 Email From B. Moody.
42
DOM00011266 – 6/13/13 Email From M. Pratt.

THE KENRICH GROUP LLC 13


Case 3:16-cv-00180-JAG Document 161-4 Filed 01/18/18 Page 15 of 32 PageID# 3733

work as agreed to and Dominion hired another contractor, Klug Bros, Inc., to repave Mrs. Young’s
driveway.43

Kenrich determined that Precision is responsible for the cost of repaving Mrs. Young’s driveway
because it made the decision to open cut instead of bore the crossing and agreed to repave the driveway
before the work began. Therefore Precision is responsible for the Klug Bros, Inc. invoice of $4,704.44

Dominion is due $47,704 for road and driveway repairs caused by various Precision actions as
shown in Table 8 below.
Table 8
TL-590 Road And Driveway Repair Damages

Description Amount
Morgan Township Road Repairs $ 43,000

Driveway Repair 4,704

Total Road And Driveway Repair Damages $ 47,704

43
DOM00090826 – Invoice #5630 From Klug Bros., Inc. Dated 8/19/13.
44
DOM00090826 – Invoice #5630 From Klug Bros., Inc. Dated 8/19/13.

THE KENRICH GROUP LLC 14


Case 3:16-cv-00180-JAG Document 161-4 Filed 01/18/18 Page 16 of 32 PageID# 3734
$WWDFKPHQW$

Mark Gentry
Vice President

Mark Gentry is a Vice President in the Minneapolis office of The The Kenrich Group LLC
Kenrich Group LLC (“Kenrich”). Mark specializes in the 10 South Fifth Street
Suite 1020
investigation and resolution of business disputes, primarily Minneapolis, MN 55402
related to the construction industry. He has consulted on a variety Tel: (612) 492-2176
of projects including casinos, schools, military barracks, Fax: (612) 343-0105
refineries, apartments, single-family homes, hotels, distribution E: mgentry@kenrichgroup.com
centers, power plants, sports stadiums, airports, water treatment
Professional History
facilities, highways, light rail lines and tunnels. In addition, Mark
x JE Dunn Construction
has analyzed manufacturing and termination issues for Project Manager (2006-2010)
government contracts. He has lead teams analyzing critical path
method schedules, productivity, cost increases and contract x Navigant Consulting
Managing Consultant (2004-2006)
issues.
x Tucker Alan Inc.
Mark has testified as an expert in arbitration and court Manager (2000-2004)
proceedings as well as presented damage and schedule delay x University of Illinois
analysis during settlement negotiations. He has also consulted Research Assistant (1998-1999)
with, and presented to, companies on scheduling methods and x Ray Black and Sons Construction
procedures, costs tracking and means to track the impact of Laborer (1996-1997)
project issues. x Illinois Army National Guard
Cannon Crew Member,
Prior to working for Kenrich, Mark worked as a Project Manager Communications and Supply
for JE Dunn Construction, an Engineering News Record top 25 Specialist (1993-1999)
contractor. His project management experience at JE Dunn
Education, Certifications & Training
included condominiums, retail facilities, office buildings, parking
x University of Illinois,
lots and casinos. In addition he has provided pre-construction
Urbana/Champaign
services for hotels and recreational facilities. B.S. in Civil Engineering,
Graduated with Honors
Selected Professional Experience x The University of Chicago – Booth
School of Business
Construction Executive Education Finance
Course
Assisting counsel with project issues on one of the first new x Registered Professional Engineer
AP1000 nuclear power plants under construction in the United (PE), Minnesota
States.
x LEED AP

Prepared a detailed cost, productivity and schedule delay analysis x OSHA 10 and 30
of a Circulating Fluidized Bed (CFB) power generation facility
Professional Associations
for an international design/build firm. The analysis was focused
around an economic force majeure and delays caused by an x National Society of Professional
Engineers
international equipment supplier. Quantity, cost and craft hour
databases were utilized to determine the magnitude of various x Minnesota State Bar Association
impacts to the site productivity at various levels of detail.
Operations logs, Distributed Control System (DCS) data, and
interviews with site personnel were used to determine and
quantify delays during plant startup. The analysis was presented
during a successful mediation.
Case 3:16-cv-00180-JAG Document 161-4 Filed 01/18/18 Page 17 of 32 PageID# 3735
$WWDFKPHQW$

Mark Gentry

Prepared a delay claim relating to a 750 MW combined cycle natural gas fired plant in Mexico
for a large international construction and engineering company. The schedule analysis focused
on delays during plant startup. Delay issues included plant and turbine trips, corrective work and
export power restrictions. Operations logs and schedules, Primavera schedules, export power
restriction curves, and interviews with key startup and planning personnel were all used to help
support the analysis.

Prepared a detailed productivity analysis related to new light rail transit system for a large
design/build firm. The analysis focused on disruptions during construction of new stations and
bridges and installation of additional track. The analysis was prepared to assist with the
explanation of cost overruns and as support for change orders.

Developed an as-planned v. as-built schedule analysis for a steel fabricator working on a new
major league baseball park. Drawing logs, piece logs and interviews with key project personnel
were utilized to determine the duration and causes of delays.

Supervised and prepared cost and schedule analyses for a chlorination and dechlorination facility.
The facility was built to treat waste water before it was released into the final effluent. The work
for the designer involved the quantification and allocation of over 700 days of delay for each
facility. We also evaluated the contractor's claims totaling over twenty million dollars.

Performed a detailed critical path methodology (CPM) schedule analysis to determine the causes
and duration of delays caused by an international equipment supplier for a global design/build
firm on the construction of a combined cycle power plant. The analysis involved the review of
monthly progress reports, contemporaneous correspondence, and interviews with key project
personnel. A time-impact schedule analysis was developed utilizing Primavera P3 scheduling
software. Work included the preparation of an extensive multimedia presentation presented at
client settlement negotiations.

Reviewed another consultant’s critical path schedule analysis of a steam generator replacement
project. The analysis focused on increased security requirements and the ripple effect early
delays had on the project due to extremely confined spaces. The review focused on proper
methodology, accuracy, and reasonableness.

Authored an expert report related to changes and impacts to an electrical contractor’s work during
the construction of two new Wal-Marts in the Twin Cities. The general contractor had declared
bankruptcy and the electrical contractor was seeking recovery from the surety. Assisted with
successful negotiations of the damages before arbitration began.

Developed claims relating to a 540 MW combined cycle power plant for an international
contractor. The claims were to recover accident related damages due to an equipment collapse
and for damages caused by the contractor’s consortium partner. Performed a detailed critical path
method schedule analysis using Primavera schedules, interviews with site personnel, progress
reports, daily and weekly site reports, and craft hour databases. Work included the preparation of
a mediation presentation.

2
Case 3:16-cv-00180-JAG Document 161-4 Filed 01/18/18 Page 18 of 32 PageID# 3736
$WWDFKPHQW$

Mark Gentry

Investigated design and construction issues related to the pipe support system for two new
circulating fluidized-bed boiler systems. Reviewed project correspondence, installation
instructions for the pipe supports, specifications, photographs, compliance submittals of the
supports and project drawings. Presented the findings via a written report.

Assisted a large international contractor develop claims related to late and damaged equipment.
Performed a summary level schedule analysis of mechanical erection, assisted with quantification
of productivity related impacts and provided litigation support.

Prepared two change orders for an international contractor related to the remediation of a retired
army chemical warfare manufacturing facility. Preparation of the change orders required a
detailed analysis of equipment, labor and distributable costs.

Assisted a large international contractor dispute a termination for cause related to a contract for
decontamination and decommissioning a nuclear power plant. The analysis included a review of
the contractor's project controls compared to the contractual requirements. Additionally, assisted
counsel to understand the major cost overruns, reasons for the overruns and provided assistance at
a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission trial.

Prepared and presented a delay claim for the signaling contractor on a new light rail construction
project to the Metropolitan Transit Authority. The delay claim analysis focused on the late
delivery of light rail vehicles and the resulting impacts to the signaling contractor.

Assisted a small electrical contractor prepare for a potential claim situation related to the
construction of a 400,000 square foot distribution center. The contractor was experiencing delays
and disruptions caused by out of sequence and late concrete pours. We assisted the contractor
understand his current cost and schedule position and develop monitoring tools so the he could
better understand when the impacts were starting to impact profitability.

Assisted a large general contractor with the calculation of certain claims related to the
construction of a new riverboat casino. The owner of the facility instituted an optional Owner-
Controlled Insurance Program (OCIP). Assisted the contractor with the quantification of the
disputed credit that was due the owner for instituting the OCIP.

Prepared and presented multiple seminars to an international design-build firm regarding claims.
The seminars focused on what individual executives, project managers and cost and schedule
engineers could be doing better in the event claimable situations arise on the project. The
seminars were tailored based on experience with the firm’s internal cost and schedule records.

Government Contracts

Assisted a large aircraft manufacturer in reviewing the opposing side’s workpapers and
performing a rebuttal schedule analysis. The analysis was used to help support the reason for
contract termination, the duration of delays in the manufacturing process, and the forecasted date
of project completion.

3
Case 3:16-cv-00180-JAG Document 161-4 Filed 01/18/18 Page 19 of 32 PageID# 3737
$WWDFKPHQW$

Mark Gentry

Insurance/Environmental

Assisted in developing models used to allocate damages to various insurance policies and
coverage blocks using a variety of trigger theories and allocation methodologies.

Performed a total cost analysis for an EPA landfill site to aid four large national manufacturing
companies in settlement negotiations.

4
Case 3:16-cv-00180-JAG Document 161-4 Filed 01/18/18 Page 20 of 32 PageID# 3738
$WWDFKPHQW$

Mark Gentry
Testimony List

Approximate
Case Name Venue Date
Georgia Power Company’s Seventeenth Georgia Public Service Commission 2017
Semi-Annual Construction Monitoring
Report For Vogtle Units 3 and 4
Docket No. 29849

RCC Framing, LLC Versus The Weitz Arbitration 2017


Company, LLC, et al.

The Weitz Company, LLC Versus Zitting State of Minnesota, County of 2017
Brothers Construction, Inc., Sam Zitting Hennepin, Fourth Judicial District
and ZB Holding, LC, d/b/a ZB Holdings,
LLC d/b/a ZB Holding Company, LLC
Case No. 27-CV-15-9490

MFC Contracting, Inc. Versus The Weitz Arbitration 2017


Company, LLC, Fidelity & Deposit
Company Of Maryland, Zurich American
Insurance Company, And Liberty Mutual
Insurance Company

Steven T. Huff Family, LLC Versus The United States District Court, District 2017
Monarch Cement Company and City Court for the Western District of
Wide Construction Products Co. Missouri, Southern Division
Case No. 6:15-CV-03214-BP

USA f/b/o Ash Equipment Co., Inc. d/b/a United States District Court, District 2017
American Hydro Versus Red Wilk Court of South Dakota, Southern
Construction, Inc., Morris, Inc. and Division
United Fire & Casualty Co.
Case No. Civ. 14-4131

Milender White Construction Co. Versus Arbitration 2016


Double H Masonry, Inc.

Hotel KCI, LLC Versus The Weitz Circuit Court Of Jackson County, 2013
Company, LLC Versus M&M Properties, Missouri
Inc. d/b/a M&M Painting, et al.
Case No. 1016-CV16475

1 of 2
Case 3:16-cv-00180-JAG Document 161-4 Filed 01/18/18 Page 21 of 32 PageID# 3739
$WWDFKPHQW$

Mark Gentry
Testimony List

Approximate
Case Name Venue Date
The Jamar Company, Inc. Versus American Arbitration Association 2012
Independent School District No. 2142, St.
Louis County, MN
Case No. 65 110 55 12

Shaw Constructors, Inc. Versus Arbitration 2012


Southwestern Electric Power Company

Terrazzo & Concrete Restoration, Inc. American Arbitration Association 2011


Versus Kraus-Anderson Construction
Company
Case No. 51 110 E 01140 10

Shaw Constructors, Inc. Versus Cleco Arbitration 2011


Power LLC

J.E. Dunn Northcentral, Inc. et al. Versus American Arbitration Association 2008
The Lofts of Stillwater, Inc. et al
Case No. 65 110 J 00028 07

2 of 2
Case 3:16-cv-00180-JAG Document 161-4 Filed 01/18/18 Page 22 of 32 PageID# 3740

Precision Pipeline v. Dominion Attachment B


Appalachian Gateway Project
Documents Relied Upon

Ref Description Bates Range


1 7/12/16 Email From M. Reaser Regarding Slip Repairs DOM0008167
2 Client Prepared List Of Slips Repaired 2013-2016 DOM00088173
3 Price Gregory International Invoices Cover Sheets DOM00079332-DOM00079336
4 Price Gregory International Invoice No. 4559 And Supporting Documentation DOM00154900-DOM00154947
5 Price Gregory International Invoice No. 4576 And Supporting Documentation DOM00154948-DOM00155499
6 Price Gregory International Invoice No. 4606 And Supporting Documentation DOM00155500-DOM00155977
7 Price Gregory International Invoice No. 4628 And Supporting Documentation DOM00155978-DOM00156432
8 Price Gregory International Invoice No. 4654 And Supporting Documentation DOM00156433-DOM00156779
9 Dominion SAP Reports Payment Support For Price Gregory DOM00156780-DOM00156782
10 Ace Pipeline Invoice 1404-001 DOM00108178
11 Ace Pipeline Invoice 1404-002 DOM00108192
12 Ace Pipeline Invoice 1404-003 DOM00084983
13 Ace Pipeline Invoice 1404-004 DOM00085087
14 Ace Pipeline Invoice 1404-005 DOM00085178
15 Ace Pipeline Invoice 1404-006 DOM00085263
16 Ace Pipeline Invoice 1404-007 DOM00085372
17 Ace Pipeline Invoice 1404-008 DOM00085480
18 Ace Pipeline Invoice 1404-009 DOM00070840
19 Ace Pipeline Invoice 1404-010 DOM00085611
20 Dominion SAP Reports Payment Support For Ace Pipeline DOM00154862-DOM00154866
21 11/6/12 Letter From M. Pratt Regarding Hurricane Sandy DOM00050852-DOM00050853
22 Email Correspondence Regarding 11/6/12 Hurricane Sandy Letter DOM00007623-DOM00007627
23 Letter From B. Moody Regarding Hurricane Sandy DOM00007628
24 Price Gregory Estimate And Proposal DOM00061405-DOM00061415
25 Ace Pipeline Estimate And Proposal DOM00068143-DOM00068146
26 2/25/13 Email From B. Moody Regarding Slips And Other Environmental Hazards DOM00051274
27 List Of Slips And Environmental Hazards Sent By B. Moody to M. Pratt DOM00055642
28 10/9/12 B. Moody And M. Pratt Emails Regarding Base Lay Overage DOM00054568-DOM00054569
29 10/16/12 Emails From Dominion Personnel Regarding Base Lay Overage DOM00050630-DOM00050634
30 Settlement Letter Dated 11/9/11 (Signed 12/19/11) DOM00000676-DOM00000678
31 2/13/14 Email From C. McCoy DOM00097080
32 TL-590 Bid Summary DOM00097090
33 Quantification Of Curlex Used On TL-590 By B. Moody And G. Park DOM00007476
34 10/16/12 Email From B. Moody To M. Pratt Regarding Curlex DOM00007475
35 10/16/12 Email From M. Pratt To B. Moody Regarding Curlex DOM00050628
36 12/17/13 Letter from Morgan Township DOM00079393
37 Corporate Disbursement Request For $86,000 To Morgan Township DOM00079394-DOM00079396
38 Dominion SAP Reports Payment Support For Morgan Township DOM00154899
39 7/17/13 Email From D. J. Linger DOM00003587
40 8/21/13 Email From M. Pratt PP00145846-PP00145847
41 Invoice #5630 From Klug Bros., Inc. DOM00090826
42 Dominion SAP Reports Payment Support For Klug Bros., Inc. DOM00154888
43 Email Correspondence Regarding Driveway Repair Part 1 of 2 DOM00004572-DOM00004573
44 Email Correspondence Regarding Driveway Repair Part 2 of 2 DOM00011266-DOM00011268
45 Location On Lands Of Young - Plat Map For L.L. 79 DTI 0004832
46 2/8/13 Email From B. Moody Sending Marked Up Invoices To Precision DOM00119655-DOM00119656
47 Invoice #10-137-01 PP00002653-PP000002657
48 Invoice #10-137-02 DOM00003706-DOM00003721
49 Invoice #10-137-03 PP00002674-PP00002692
50 Invoice #10-137-04 DOM00000056-DOM00000064
51 Invoice #10-137-05 DOM00000046-DOM00000055
52 Invoice #10-137-06 DOM000000239-DOM00000248
53 Invoice #10-137-07 DOM000008089-DOM00008093
54 Invoice #10-137-08 DOM000008094-DOM00008103
55 Invoice #10-137-09 PP00002737-PP00002746
56 Invoice #10-137-10 PP00002747-PP00002757
57 Invoice #10-137-11 PP00002758-PP00002768
58 Invoice #10-137-12 DOM00000165-DOM00000175
59 Invoice #10-137-13 DOM00000281-DOM00000291
60 Invoice #10-137-14 DOM00000419-DOM00000432

Page 1 Of 3
Case 3:16-cv-00180-JAG Document 161-4 Filed 01/18/18 Page 23 of 32 PageID# 3741

Precision Pipeline v. Dominion Attachment B


Appalachian Gateway Project
Documents Relied Upon

Ref Description Bates Range


61 Invoice #10-137-15 DOM00000505-DOM00000506
62 Invoice #10-137-16 PP00002820
63 Invoice #10-137-17 DOM00000493-DOM00000504
64 Invoice #10-137-18 DOM00115686-DOM00115696
65 Invoice #10-137-19 DOM00000535-DOM00000546
66 Invoice #10-137-20 PP00002856-PP00002867
67 Invoice #10-137-21 PP00002868-PP00002888
68 Invoice #10-137-22 PP00002889-PP00002892
69 Invoice #10-137-23 DOM00000710-DOM00000721
70 Invoice #10-137-24 DOM00000697-DOM00000701
71 Invoice #10-137-25 DOM00000773-DOM00000776
72 Invoice #10-137-26 PP00002914-PP00002925
73 Invoice #10-137-27 DOM00000793-DOM00000798
74 Invoice #10-137-28 DOM00000816-DOM00000828
75 Invoice #10-137-29 DOM00000839-DOM00000850
76 Invoice #10-137-30 DOM00000872-DOM00000884
77 Invoice #10-137-31 DOM00000885-DOM00000893
78 Invoice #10-137-32 PP00002979-PP00002989
79 Invoice #10-137-33 DOM00009036-DOM00009046
80 Invoice #10-137-34 DOM00009047-DOM00009056
81 Invoice #10-137-35 DOM00001050-DOM00001053
82 Invoice #10-137-36 DOM00001081-DOM00001084
83 Invoice #10-137-37 DOM00001070-DOM00001080
84 Invoice #10-137-38 DOM00001085-DOM00001088
85 Invoice #10-137-39 DOM00001119-DOM00001122
86 Invoice #10-137-40 DOM00001132-DOM00001135
87 Invoice #10-137-41 DOM00001174-DOM00001183
88 Invoice #10-137-42 DOM00001164-DOM00001173
89 Invoice #10-137-43 DOM00001191-DOM00001199
90 Invoice #10-137-44 DOM00001284-DOM00001293
91 Invoice #10-137-45 DOM00001213-DOM00001222
92 Invoice #10-137-46 DOM00001306-DOM00001315
93 Invoice #10-137-47 DOM00001316-DOM00001325
94 Invoice #10-137-48 DOM00001260-DOM00001262
95 Invoice #10-137-49 DOM00001264-DOM00001272
96 Invoice #10-137-50 DOM00001374-DOM00001382
97 Invoice #10-137-51 DOM00001501-DOM00001510
98 Invoice #10-137-52 DOM00001512-DOM00001520
99 Invoice #10-137-53 DOM00001526-DOM00001535
100 Invoice #10-137-54 DOM00001537-DOM00001547
101 Invoice #10-137-55 DOM00001566-DOM00001574
102 Invoice #10-137-56 DOM00001790-DOM00001799
103 Invoice #10-137-57 DOM00001801-DOM00001810
104 Invoice #10-137-58 DOM00001812-DOM00001822
105 Invoice #10-137-59 DOM00002261-DOM00002265
106 Invoice #10-137-60 DOM00002279-DOM00002289
107 Invoice #10-137-61 DOM00002291-DOM00002301
108 Invoice #10-137-62 DOM00002303-DOM00002305
109 Invoice #10-137-63 DOM00002307-DOM00002361
110 Invoice #10-137-64 DOM00002460-DOM00002470
111 Invoice #10-137-64 (with mark-ups) DOM00004428-DOM00004438
112 Invoice #10-137-65 DOM00002449-DOM00002458
113 Invoice #10-137-66 DOM00002576-DOM00002584
114 Invoice #10-137-67 DOM00002585-DOM00002593
115 Invoice #10-137-68 DOM00002537-DOM00002544
116 Invoice #10-137-68 (with mark-ups) DOM00004459-DOM00004466
117 Invoice #10-137-69 DOM00002556-DOM00002564
118 Invoice #10-137-69 (with mark-ups) DOM00004467-DOM00004475
119 Invoice #10-137-70 DOM00002546-DOM00002554
120 Invoice #10-137-70 (with mark-ups) DOM00004476-DOM00004484

Page 2 Of 3
Case 3:16-cv-00180-JAG Document 161-4 Filed 01/18/18 Page 24 of 32 PageID# 3742

Precision Pipeline v. Dominion Attachment B


Appalachian Gateway Project
Documents Relied Upon

Ref Description Bates Range


121 Invoice #10-137-71 DOM00002566-DOM00002574
122 Invoice #10-137-71 (with mark-ups) DOM00004485-DOM00004493
123 Invoice #10-137-72 DOM00010758-DOM00010760
124 Invoice #10-137-73 DOM00002656-DOM00002658
125 Invoice #10-137-74 DOM00002660-DOM00002670
126 Invoice #10-137-75 DOM00002692-DOM00002695
127 Invoice #10-137-76 DOM00011077-DOM00011079
128 Invoice #10-137-77 DOM00002706-DOM00002710
129 Invoice #10-137-78 PP00003400-PP00003402
130 Invoice #10-137-79 PP00003403-PP00003405
131 Invoice #10-137-80 PP00003406-PP00003409
132 Invoice #10-137-81 PP00003410-PP00003417
133 Invoice #10-137-82 PP00003418-PP00003423
134 Invoice #10-137-83 DOM00011217-DOM00011220
135 Invoice #10-137-84 DOM00011227-DOM00011230
136 Invoice #10-137-85 DOM00011221-DOM00011223
137 Invoice #10-137-86 DOM00011224-DOM00011225
138 Invoice #10-137-87 DOM00011232-DOM00011234
139 Contract 2010-18: TL-590 & TL-492 70 x5 DOM00051072-DOM00051135
140 Exhibit A - Scope of Work: Pipeline Data PP00045569-PP00045582
141 Attachment 1 to Exhibit A: Project Schedule PP00045526-PP00045531
142 Attachment 2 to Exhibit A: Pricing Sheet PP00045532-PP00045557
143 Exhibit B: Addenda PP00145978-PP00146013
144 Exhibit C - List Of Drawings PP00062552-PP00062554
145 Exhibit E - 2.1 General Specifications for Pipeline Construction PP00240820-PP00240855
146 Exhibit P - Completion Certificates DOM00004126
147 Exhibit Q - Contractor's Environmental Compliance Plan PP00046106-PP00046140
148 GAI Consultants As-Built Survey Drawings Dated 11/07/12 DTI 0002653-DTI 0002734
149 Trico Surveying And Mapping Approved For Construction Drawings DTI 0002571-DTI 0002615
150 Trico Surveying And Mapping Erosion & Sedimentation Control Drawings Dated 10/25/10 Trico 07955
151 6/30/14 Letter From C. McCoy DOM00097231-DOM00097233
152 8/19/14 Letter From M. Pratt PP00189534-PP00189538

Page 3 Of 3
Case 3:16-cv-00180-JAG Document 161-4 Filed 01/18/18 Page 25 of 32 PageID# 3743

Precision Pipeline v. Dominion Attachment C


Appalachian Gateway Project
Summary Of Slip Repairs On TL-590
Station State 2013 2014
131+00 WV x
192+00 WV x
200+00 WV x x
292+00 WV x
446+50 WV x
547+50 WV x
573+00 WV x x
574+25 WV x
586+00/588+77 WV x x
592+00 WV x
605+50 WV x
611+50 WV x
939+75 WV x
952+30 WV x
975+40 WV x
1066+00 PA x x
1076+75 PA x x
1157+00 PA x
1225+01 PA x
1249+62 PA x
1342+00 PA x x
1343+20/1343+81 PA x
1346+00 PA x
1395+01 PA x
1397+25 PA x
1489+00 PA x x
1526+00 PA x
1626+50 PA x
1688+00 PA x x
1693+00 PA x
1752+12 PA x x
1770+35 PA x x
1816+25 PA x
1816+50 PA x x
1941+00 PA x
1941+75 PA x
1949+00 PA x
1955+75 PA x
1987+00 PA x
1988+50 PA x
2017+35 PA x
2044+00 PA x
2045+75 PA x
2054+75 PA x
Total 44 31 24

Source:
"Slips Repaired On TL-590" (DOM00088173)
Case 3:16-cv-00180-JAG Document 161-4 Filed 01/18/18 Page 26 of 32 PageID# 3744

Precision Pipeline v. Dominion Attachment D.1


Appalachian Gateway Project
Summary Of 2013 TL-590 Slip Repair And Restoration Related Damages

Description Amount
Slip Repair Work $ 3,343,699.68
Indirect Costs 1,428,675.30
Total 2013 TL-590 Slip Repair And Restoration Damages $ 4,772,374.98
Case 3:16-cv-00180-JAG Document 161-4 Filed 01/18/18 Page 27 of 32 PageID# 3745

Precision Pipeline v. Dominion Attachment D.2


Appalachian Gateway Project
Allocation Of Indirect Work For 2013 TL-590 Slip Repair And Restoration Work

[B = A/Total
[A] Direct Costs] [C] [D = B*C] [E = A+D]
% Of Total Allocated
Description Direct Costs Direct Costs Indirect Work Indirect Work Total
Slip Repair Work $ 3,343,699.68 87.25% $ 1,637,450.20 $ 1,428,675.30 $ 4,772,374.98
Unrelated Work 488,533.44 12.75% 1,637,450.20 208,774.90 697,308.34
Total $ 3,832,233.12 100.00% $ 1,637,450.20 $ 5,469,683.32
Case 3:16-cv-00180-JAG Document 161-4 Filed 01/18/18 Page 28 of 32 PageID# 3746

Precision Pipeline v. Dominion Attachment E.1


Appalachian Gateway Project
Summary Of 2014 TL-590 Slip Repair And Restoration Related Damages

Description Amount

Slip Repair $ 1,823,087.92

Seeding/Fertilizing 469,900.71

ECD Removal 381,905.81

Total 2014 TL-590 Slip Repair And Restoration Damages $ 2,674,894.44


Case 3:16-cv-00180-JAG Document 161-4 Filed 01/18/18 Page 29 of 32 PageID# 3747

Precision Pipeline v. Dominion Attachment E.2


Appalachian Gateway Project
Allocation Of Indirect Work For 2014 TL-590 ROW Slip Repair And Restoration Work

[B = A/Total
[A] Direct Costs] [C] [D = B*C] [E = A+D]
% Of Total Allocated
Description Direct Costs Direct Costs Indirect Work Indirect Work Total
Slip Repair $ 708,033.64 64.83% $ 1,719,966.49 $ 1,115,054.28 $ 1,823,087.92
Seeding/Fertilizing 182,494.31 16.71% 1,719,966.49 287,406.40 469,900.71
ECD Removal 148,334.36 13.58% 1,719,966.49 233,571.45 381,905.81
Unrelated 53,304.30 4.88% 1,719,966.49 83,934.36 137,238.66
Total $ 1,092,166.61 100.00% $ 1,719,966.49 $ 2,812,133.10
Case 3:16-cv-00180-JAG Document 161-4 Filed 01/18/18 Page 30 of 32 PageID# 3748

Precision Pipeline v. Dominion Attachment F.1


Appalachian Gateway Project
Summary Of TL-590 Base Lay Overpayment
[A] [B] [C = A - B] [D] [E = C * D]
Quantity Billed Quantity
(1)
Base Lay Unit Price Pay Items And Paid (LF) Installed (LF) Difference (LF) Unit Price Overpayment
(2)
A.1 Material/Pipe at Pipeyard 227,576 223,450 4,126 $ 12.81 $ 52,854.06
A.2 Clear ROW 227,576 223,450 4,126 25.62 105,708.12
A.3 Grade ROW 227,576 223,450 4,126 25.62 105,708.12
A.4 Ditch 227,576 223,450 4,126 51.24 211,416.24
A.5 Weld 227,576 223,450 4,126 64.05 264,270.30
A.6 Coat 227,576 223,450 4,126 25.62 105,708.12
(3)
A.8 Hydrotest 223,517 223,450 67 12.81 858.27
Total $ 846,523.23
Less: 1% Discount (4) (8,465.23)
Total Baselay Overpayment $ 838,058.00
Notes:
(1) As per Progress Billing Invoice 10-137-64. This is the last invoice that Dominion paid for Base Lay items.
(2) Dominion paid Precision for 235,391 LF for Item A.1 Material/Pipe at Pipeyard as shown in invoice 10-137-49. For purposes of this
analysis, it is assumed that the billed difference between Item A.1 (235,391 LF) and the other Base Lay items (227,576 LF) is due to more
material/pipe being hauled to the pipeyard than was actually installed. Therefore, the overage is being calculated based on the 227,576 LF
of base lay pipe billed and paid for other unit price items.
(3) Dominion did not pay the full invoiced value for Item A.8 Hydrotest on invoice 10-137-64. In total, Dominion paid for 223,517 LF
(199,029 LF prior to Invoice 10-137-64 and 24,488 LF in Invoice10-137-64). See Invoice And Payment Analysis.
(4) The individual unit prices included on Precision's invoices reflect a 1% discount as per the Settlement Agreement. Unit Price values
shown in this analysis are the contractual unit price and the 1% discount is calculated on the total.

Source:
Invoice And Payment Analysis

General Note:
Base Lay Unit Price Pay Item A.7 is excluded from this analysis because it was not overpaid.
Case 3:16-cv-00180-JAG Document 161-4 Filed 01/18/18 Page 31 of 32 PageID# 3749

Precision Pipeline v. Dominion Attachment F.2


Appalachian Gateway Project
Summary Of TL-590 Baselay Footage

Description Footage
(1)
As-Built Footage 229,237 [A]
(2)
Less: Authorized Special Work Items:
1.2 A) 30" Bore 2,390
1.2 B) 36" Casing 60
1.2 C) 30" Open Cut 1,536
1.2 E) 30" Stream/Wetland CCP 901
1.2 F) Fish Creek (Wet) 241
1.2 H) 30" Stream/Wetland 659
Authorized Special Work Footage 5,787 [B]

Total Base Lay Footage 223,450 [C = A - B]

Sources:
(1) GAI As-Built drawings dated 11/07/12 (DTI 0002730)
(2) Progress Billing Invoices 10-137-71 (DOM00002566-
DOM00002574). This is the last progress billing invoice Dominion
paid any part of.
Case 3:16-cv-00180-JAG Document 161-4 Filed 01/18/18 Page 32 of 32 PageID# 3750

Precision Pipeline v. Dominion Attachment G


Appalachian Gateway Project
Summary Of TL-590 Curlex (Erosion Control Fabric) Overpayment

Description Value
(1) (A)
Cumulative Paid Curlex Quantity Through Invoice 10-137-67 (SF) 8,348,555
(2) (A)
Curlex Quantity Paid For In Invoice 10-137-68 (SF) 278,462
Total Square Feet Of Curlex Paid By Dominion 8,627,017
(B)
Less: Square Feet Of Curlex Installed By Precision (8,339,694)
Square Feet Of Curlex Overpaid By Dominion 287,323
Unit Price Per Square Foot Of Curlex $ 0.60
Total Curlex Overpayment $ 172,393.80

Notes:
(1) Dominion paid in full for Item HH. EC Fabric through Invoice 10-137-67.
(2) Dominion short-paid Invoice 10-137-68 for Item HH. EC Fabric. See Invoice And
Payment Analysis.

Sources:
(A) Invoice And Payment Analysis.
(B) "TL-590 Curlex Location" (DOM00007476)

S-ar putea să vă placă și